Sure we might not see the unjustified deaths of 6 million jews and 6 million others this time around, it could be worse...you never know. It does not take much Anthrax or Botulism to kill somebody - and Hussein has them in <b>huge</b> amounts. I don't wanna see Americans or people from any country have to suffer through that kind of ordeal. I know people who have worked with NCB (Nuclear/Chemical/Biological) weapon developments - and it is not pretty stuff. Keep in mind that never did I say that this war is "right", but it's just something that has got to be done.
[edit] <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"I do not know what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." --Albert Einstein<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> [/edit
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It does not take much Anthrax or Botulism to kill somebody - and Hussein has them in huge amounts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great! The whole western world is wrestling for proof of small amounts of them, and now you come along and know that Hussein has B-weapons in huge amounts. I'd suggest you give Mr.Blix a ring, you might save him from another sixty days of searching.
Aside from that, my question stands: What in hell makes Hussein and Hitler comparable?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"The first victim to a war is the truth."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
State Department cables and court records reveal a wealth of information on how U.S. foreign policy shifted in the 1980s to help Iraq. Virtually all of the information is in the words of key participants, including Donald Rumsfeld, now secretary of defense.
THE NEW INFORMATION on the policy shift toward Iraq, and Rumsfeld’s role in it, comes as The New York Times reported Sunday that United States gave Iraq vital battle-planning help during its war with Iran as part of a secret program under President Reagan — even though U.S. intelligence agencies knew the Iraqis would unleash chemical weapons. The covert program involved more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency who helped Iraq in its eight-year war with Iran by providing detailed information on Iranian military deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments, the Times said. The Times said it based its report on comments by senior U.S. military officers with direct knowledge of the program, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. Iraq and neighboring Iran waged a vicious war from September 1980 to August 1988. An estimated 1 million people were killed and millions more were dislocated by the fighting.
The American Government is famous for "Selective Memory" ... they remember what they want and forget about everything else the happened.
I still hear the Adminstration accuse Iraq of using Chemical Weapons against the Iranians as a reason for War <i>but</i> the CIA is just as guilty as Iraq. For Chemical Weapons to be effective Satellite Imagery is vital to the planning of their deployment. The US are no less guilty then Iraq for the death of the millions of Iranians, they provided important intelligence as well as diplomatic support.
<b>"United States gave Iraq vital battle-planning help during its war with Iran as part of a secret program under President Reagan — <i>even though U.S. intelligence agencies knew the Iraqis would unleash chemical weapons</i>. The covert program involved more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency who helped Iraq in its eight-year war with Iran by providing detailed information on Iranian military deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments..."</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Feb 4 2003, 12:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 4 2003, 12:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It does not take much Anthrax or Botulism to kill somebody - and Hussein has them in huge amounts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great! The whole western world is wrestling for proof of small amounts of them, and now you come along and know that Hussein has B-weapons in huge amounts. I'd suggest you give Mr.Blix a ring, you might save him from another sixty days of searching.
Aside from that, my question stands: What in hell makes Hussein and Hitler comparable?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"The first victim to a war is the truth."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <u>In case you don't realize exactly WHAT the United Nations inspectors were(are) doing in Iraq:</u>
The UN Inspectors were sent there to verify that Iraq is disarming weapons of mass destruction. In order to accomplish this, the Iraqi regime would have to give proof that they are dismantling weapons facilities, destroying conventional and unconventional weaponry, and ceasing research on NCB (Nuclear/Chemical/Biological) Weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is not doing anything of this sort, in fact they are hiding everything that they have and arming themselves even further. Iraq is already in material breach of this contract, and will be dealt with accordingly for this alone.
Not only is Hussein destroying his own people, but he's destroying the lands that were once the "Fertile Crescent". Remember that place from high school history classes? Well that is where Iraq is located now, but they have changed the scheme of the land so greatly that it has become a barren wasteland now - so you tree-huggin hippies DO have a reason to be angry with this regime. If you can find them, take a look at some pictures of Iraq's river valleys circa 1975, and then compare them with a picture from the last decade. The degradation of the marshlands there is nearly complete, and it would truly take a miracle of engineering to bring them back to what they once were.
I'll save my other points to add later - too much fuel on the fire at once and we'll all get burned.
[edit] I forgot about the 2nd question <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Hopefully, nothing WILL make Hussein and Hitler directly comparable - which is why we ought to do what we ought to do. Hussein is tyrannical enough and evil enough to make this much more than a holocaust (keep in mind I used a lowercase 'h' in holocaust, because I'm referring to the general term, not the one in WW2 specifically). The question is: does he have the resolve to pull anything with the weight of the U.S. Military and our allies on top of him? [/edit]
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not only is Hussein destroying his own people, but he's destroying the lands that were once the "Fertile Crescent". Remember that place from high school history classes? Well that is where Iraq is located now, but they have changed the scheme of the land so greatly that it has become a barren wasteland now - so you tree-huggin hippies DO have a reason to be angry with this regime. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You do realise that up until he killed the Kurds, Iraq was one of the few agricultrural producers in the middle east, right? Iraq only lost it's producer status because Hussein killed the Kurds, who made up teh majority of Iraq's farmers.
<!--QuoteBegin--Onuma+Feb 4 2003, 11:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Onuma @ Feb 4 2003, 11:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> they have changed the scheme of the land so greatly that it has become a barren wasteland now - so you tree-huggin hippies DO have a reason to be angry with this regime. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Don't get the wrong idea buddy. I think EVERYONE in theis discussion grees that something <b>HAS</b> to be done with Saddam.
I just so happen to be agaisnt war. I wonder why can't our leaders think up a better idea than war. There has to be millions of other ways. I think that war is profitable and thats why it is their solution.
And If they haven't thought of something better than war, then they're not thinking hard enough.
"Why do you come up with a better idea?" I've heard war sympathizers say. Well, To be frank I do think about it alot, however, I am not one of our leaders and I've come to the conclusion that even If I did have the answer it wouldn't matter. War is what they want, it's what they will get. I am afraid they will all the war they can handle.
As far as our soldiers who frequent the forums about the nicest thing I can say to you is, "I sincerely hope that you are killed before you are exposed to chemical and/or biological warfare." I mean this with a whole heart.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Dezmodium+Feb 4 2003, 08:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dezmodium @ Feb 4 2003, 08:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As far as our soldiers who frequent the forums about the nicest thing I can say to you is, "I sincerely hope that you are killed before you are exposed to chemical and/or biological warfare." I mean this with a whole heart. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Because then the Gov will ignore you and give you no benifits until almost 9 times as many of you have died from the long term effects fo said biological/chemical agents. O wait, that already happened.
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Feb 5 2003, 01:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Feb 5 2003, 01:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Because then the Gov will ignore you and give you no benifits until almost 9 times as many of you have died from the long term effects fo said biological/chemical agents. O wait, that already happened. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I wish it weren't true.
But seriously not to be morbid or anything. I just wouldn't want to see any of you die slowly and horribly from the long term affects.
<!--QuoteBegin--Onuma+Feb 4 2003, 11:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Onuma @ Feb 4 2003, 11:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <u>In case you don't realize exactly WHAT the United Nations inspectors were(are) doing in Iraq:</u>
The UN Inspectors were sent there to verify that Iraq is disarming weapons of mass destruction. In order to accomplish this, the Iraqi regime would have to give proof that they are dismantling weapons facilities, destroying conventional and unconventional weaponry, and ceasing research on NCB (Nuclear/Chemical/Biological) Weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is not doing anything of this sort, in fact they are hiding everything that they have and arming themselves even further. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is a distinct difference between what they were doing and are doing. They <i>were</i> supervising the destruction of NBC weaponry, now they <i>are</i> searching for prove this wasn't finished. Should you not yet have noticed, the whole of the pre-Persian Gulf War factories, all laboratories, all chemical plants fit for the production of such weapons, have been dismanteled. The last time it was suspected they had rebuilt one of them, President Bill Clinton gave the order to attack it - and thus destroyed a factory producing aspirin. The inspectors are searching for 'smoking guns', and the only one assuming by default that them not finding anything means Hussein hid the stuff too well is Mr. Rumsfeld.
By the way, how come we see such a big procedere around the BC-weapon production of the Iraq, while the (illegal) laboratories the US government created, breaking any WoM contract they ever signed, were a two-days newsstory?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->so you tree-huggin hippies DO have a reason to be angry with this regime. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, I hate to tell you this, but I'm no "tree-huggin hippie". I drive a car, I don't smoke weed, I couldn't give a crap about the fate of the whales if I didn't know that by screwing the ecology up, we screw ourselves as well. Second, as I said before, and as Dez already pointed out, nobody in here doubts that Hussein is the 'bad boy'. The questions we're asking are whether Bush is the good guy, and whether there are viable alternatives for an Iraq without of Hussein, and there are none, especially since Bush sen. left Iraqs democratic opposition to be slaughtered after Gulf War one.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hopefully, nothing WILL make Hussein and Hitler directly comparable - which is why we ought to do what we ought to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great logics. I think it's best for me to let the police lock me away right now - you never know, maybe one day I'll snap, buy myself a hunting rifle and search for a nice, high tower.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hussein is tyrannical enough and evil enough<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite honestly, I yet have to see a way of measuring 'evilness' ("Personally, I believe I'm 0,0125 Ghengiz Khan, or 0,05 Micheal Jackson."), and in my opinion, there's a little difference between the sinisterness of a simple murderer (and Hussein is just that) and a man basing his whole life solely on hate. As for 'tyrannical', there are currently multiple dozens of tyrants on this planet, some of which came into power with the help of the US. Are they <i>all</i> like Hitler?
You said you studied history. So, to rephrase my question, what makes the position of the Iraq and Nazi-Germany (or the current European politic and Appeasement) comparable?
Oh, by the way, <a href='http://www.theonion.com/onion3904/north_dakota.html' target='_blank'>the Axis of Evil just got bigger <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--></a>
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Yep, you're probably right. We should just walk away. And while we're at it, we'll drop all the sanctions placed on Iraq which do nothing more than starve the Iraqi people.
After that we should all apologize to Saddam for bothering him so much. Then maybe we can all be friends.
So far, that's the only non-military solution to this problem that I've heard. I asked for more a while back, but apparently nobody bothered to think one up. "Containment" I hear. What exactly does that mean? We all stand around looking over his shoulder? We've been doing that. Obviously it hasn't worked. But the Iraqi people don't really seem to care if Saddam rules their country so....
Maybe something slipped past me and all the newspapers I searched, but <i>why</i> has it obviously not worked? What kind of agression and/or prove for a soon to be agression from the Iraq stood at the beginning of this conflict? I can tell you - none. For the last five years, Hussein has done absolutely - <i>nothing</i> - that would justify an assault (yes, I'm aware that I'm also blaming Clinton with this, get over it). This crisis began with Bush calling Hussein part of the Axis of Evil.
Should the 150.000 soldiers that are waiting for the order to attack be withdrawn? Yes. Should the sanctions be aborted? Yes.
Should they be replaced with a new, better thought out system of sanctions? Should the Iraq be kept under further observation, possibly additionally by a kind of 'compulsory' weapon inspection? You betcha.
<!--QuoteBegin--Spooge+Feb 5 2003, 02:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Feb 5 2003, 02:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yep, you're probably right. We should just walk away. And while we're at it, we'll drop all the sanctions placed on Iraq which do nothing more than starve the Iraqi people. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sadly maybe this could be a start. The worse it is for the people the more likely and quicker they will be to rebel. This FACT ecoes throughout history. Where are our geurillas when when need em'.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
And what will they rebel with? Handfulls of dirt? Stones? Bad language? Certainly you aren't suggesting that we ARM these "rebels"? And guerrillas? Sounds like a military term to me.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
Do not understimate the power starving revolutionaries. The phillipinos were unequiped, and they whuped us. The Cuban rebels were reletively unequipped, but they have been able to succesfully rebel and keep power(while giving the US the finger nearly every step of the way) for, how long has been know? A good long time? The Bolshevicks were a reletively weak force fighting one of the strongest nations in the world. They won.' What makes you think that any rebelion in Iraq wouldn't work? One of them almost worked already, but when they asked us for help, we refused, but you're not allowed to say that around these parts.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Feb 5 2003, 11:27 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 5 2003, 11:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Should they be replaced with a new, better thought out system of sanctions? Should the Iraq be kept under further observation, possibly additionally by a kind of 'compulsory' weapon inspection? You betcha. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And what happens when the weapons are found? Does the U.N. sign ANOTHER resolution that says Saddam must disarm and discontinue is weapons programs? And what if he refuses? What diplomatic action can you take that only punishes Saddam's regime without damaging the Iraqi civilians?
Sweeping over the missile strikes in 98 is rather convenient don't ya think? The language used at the time was the same almost to the word. What's interesting is that the support for those strikes has changed only slightly in comparison to the current situation.
Here's a few links to check:
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/17/world.reax.iraq.02/#5' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/17/wor...reax.iraq.02/#5</a> Scroll up a bit for a condensed list. You'll find the name of one supporting country looks very familiar.
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/clinton021998.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl...inton021998.htm</a> Note the similarities in the language of this article.
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...ts/clinton.html</a> Here's a transcript of President Clinton's public address after the operation had begun. Note that he did NOT go to the U.N. and ask permission alongside PM Blair.
Bush won't attack without the British Navy + PM Blair. Blair won't attack with or without American until he has all that money from Bush in the bank. They're discarding the EU, personally we should go ahead and just strip them of weapons, if they refuse bomb the areas with military arsenal that they're not allowed. No matter what happens another country will start using their nuclear arsenal in aid for Iraq. . .
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
edited February 2003
Um....no.
I find it hard to believe that anyone will ever use nuclear weapons on any scale, because the only countries that would ever attack with them are run by people who's main goal is to be in power at any cost, and you can't be in power if ther is no one to rule.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"<i>I do not know what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.</i>" --Albert Einstein<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is what will happen when someone presses the Big Red Button.
<!--QuoteBegin--Spooge+Feb 5 2003, 04:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Feb 5 2003, 04:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And what will they rebel with? Handfulls of dirt? Stones? Bad language? Certainly you aren't suggesting that we ARM these "rebels"? And guerrillas? Sounds like a military term to me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> A. You talk about our sanctions that we give Iraq. Saddam doesn't give them to the people who need them so taking them away won't matter at all.
B. The Iraqi army has plenty of weapons. They are in a **** position too. Its not unheard of for a nations army to take up arms against its own leaders and change the government themselves.
C. What makes you think that the government we put into power after Saddam is dead will be better?<sarcasm> I mean because we don't have poverty in America. And we have a stable economy so obviously we know what we are doing </sarcasm>
"Guerilla" term was used to make an association with a fighter who fights for "the peoples" cause. They need freedom fighters. I doubt any Iraqi's want America to do their dirty work.
Guerrilla means little war, Che Guevara wrote a book on it, and It isnt neccesarily a war for the people, but it really helps. Iraq, however is not conducive to a Guerrilla war. Guerrilla wars are best fought in forests or jungles. There is very little cover in the desert.
Powel should learn how to direct a film better. His "Evidence Show" was pretty stupid...
What we have here fellas is a hand full of oil-warmongers without any kind of evidence trying to start a dangerous war, without giving a thought about anyone but them selves. This is the time we should speak out and dont let this happen. Have a nice day.
<!--QuoteBegin--Spooge+Feb 5 2003, 09:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Feb 5 2003, 09:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And what happens when the weapons are found? Does the U.N. sign ANOTHER resolution that says Saddam must disarm and discontinue is weapons programs? And what if he refuses? What diplomatic action can you take that only punishes Saddam's regime without damaging the Iraqi civilians? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now we're getting pretty hypothetical, but what the hell.
First, there is a distinct difference between what <i>happens</i> after the weapons are found (Gulf War 2), and what <i>should</i> happen in my opinion (issuing a 30-days ultimatum to hand the weapons over for destruction, institutionalizing a mandatory weapon inspection...).
Would Hussein refuse? Not likely. As AllUrHives already mentioned, this man clinges to his power. Complying to the guidelines would be the only way left - for him, there'd be too many possible enemies and too little WoM to nuke them all, as mean as that may sound.
As for Clinton, yes, he was just another one "of the boys", as Bill Hicks once stated. Neither Democrats nor Replublicans followed the right foreign policies for the last two decades. The big difference is that Clinton limited himself to small outbursts, whereas Bush sets the stages for a war as the US haven't seen one since Vietnam.
I would however like to point out that two countries which were 'on the fence' / 'supporting' the last time, aren't this time, or, as it was put in the Onion "Hey, Mr. President! Even the Germans don't want to fight. Get the friggin hint." <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
This all was written by the inhabitant of <a href='http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,233970,00.html' target='_blank'>a country comparable to Lybia.</a> (German link.)
<!--QuoteBegin--Gargamel+Feb 6 2003, 01:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gargamel @ Feb 6 2003, 01:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Powel should learn how to direct a film better. His "Evidence Show" was pretty stupid...
What we have here fellas is a hand full of oil-warmongers without any kind of evidence trying to start a dangerous war, without giving a thought about anyone but them selves. This is the time we should speak out and dont let this happen. Have a nice day. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I really respect the hard work and dedication you must have had to commit to be <span style='color:white'>no flaming.</span>
Iraq produces 1-2 Billion barrells of oil a day. The world output is about 50-60 Billion. The US gain will be minimal at best. Also, OPEC, not the individual country controls production and hence prices. Free market economics also dictates that the oil prices are not affected by an individual country. Just because we don't buy oil from Iraq doesn't stop other countries. Oi prices balance out. For example: Buying only South American Oil means that less people can buy South American oil, meaning they need to buy Middle Eastern oil instead of Venezualan. All you do is change where people send their money- you end up getting the same and paying the same amount- its only to whom that changes. It doesn't matter where you get it, its all the same price because of the nature of oil as a commodity.
Second, you can't actually say Iraq has NO WMDs. The UN acknowledges it. The world acknowledges it. Powell's evidence would be sketchy if not for the fact that it was corroborated from multiple sources. For example, a defector said that in July of 2002, Iraq was clearing out a chemical site. US satilete photos show just this- numerous trucks at said 'suspected' chemical dev. site. Add in later photos showing the entire area razed and you have undeniable proof.
Finally, look at Bush's character. He's a very religious guy. The left loves to attack him on this. Being the man that he is, he's very concerned about right and wrong, and he knows its wrong to go to war for personal gain. The left likes to leave the line between these 2 dots unconnected.
And whats so bad about going to war- its part of life. The Iraqi people are oppressed. Can anyone legitametly say that the Iraqi people will be worse off (or even in the same position they're in now!) if Saddam loses power? <span style='color:white'>Still no flaming.</span>
- The Iraq produces very little oil right now, this doesn't change a thing about it having roughly a third of the oilreserves left.
- There's very little to the oiltrade that can be described as 'free market'. Aside from the OPEC, which does by the way not represent all oil producing states, there are numerous other influences that keep this market 'controlled'. Prices don't level out that way and differ highly from producing state to producing state. Just look at the prices on the stuff in the North Sea.
- All we know is that the Iraq used to have weapons of mass destruction. Everything else has to be verified, which the Inspectors will do now.
- Bush being religious is all good and nice - but there's this little phrase in your constitution forcing a divide between religion and state. If Bush has faith in god, I congratulate him on it. If he makes that faith the basis of his political descisions, I call him a fundamentalist. If he starts a war because of his religious notions, he's a crusader and not by an inch better than Bin Laden.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And whats so bad about going to war- its part of life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. It's the end of life.
Aside from that, show me the Iraqi who could lead his/her country in a better future and would have all the land behind him/her. The Iraq was divided amongst warlords when Hussein gained power, and ethnic, religious and economical tension make it quite likely that it'd fall into that pit again. Taking a look at Afghanistan, I doubt that any kind of foreign force could change that.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Gargamel+Feb 6 2003, 08:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gargamel @ Feb 6 2003, 08:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Powel should learn how to direct a film better. His "Evidence Show" was pretty stupid... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> By the way, to anyone who saw it: guess who is now the proud owner of www.al-kindi.com?
ME! YAYAYAY! bought it yesterday, nothing up yet, but soon(if I don't post much after this, it means the FBI got me)
1. Nemesis, could it be true that you know what you re talking about? I hardly can add anything...thx for replying for me <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> 2. Jammer, why should we flame? I dont see a reason for that! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Are you from the US? Well, you know, it doesnt really matter to me <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> For me you re the "Jammer" Guy and I think I like you, cause I think I should like all interested people. And you are an interested Guy. But Leaders and Politicians are not nice people. They like to abuse Power and lie to those interested people.And Bush is a bad fella, as is Saddam... So... if Bush sold all chemical weapons to Iraq and now wants to attack it because it bought those from the US, well you see where this is going to... What if Powel came out and said: WE KNOW THEY HAVE WMDs BUT ONLY BECAUSE WE SOLD THEM TO IRAQ OURSELVES! This is ridicoulus of course, thats why noone says it. In the End, its all a game of superiority... compare our globe as ns_hera and IRaq the doubled resourced holo room <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
You really do have to laugh at how people bash the US now let me make this clear THE US HAS BEEN THE NICEIST KINDIST MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY THE WORLD HAS YET SEEN look at every other empire if you well and what do they do after a war they take the country they beat and make it there own if the US was like that we would now OWN Germany France Japan Spain Iraq North and South Korea Vietnam and many other smaller islands and countries so plz shut up about how "mean and evil" the US is because we are one of if not the niceist world powers ever. If we want to blow up Iraq then we can its that simple if France Germany or China or any of the UN have a problem with it then they should put up or shut up because I don't see any of them trying to make the world a safer place just remeber you can't enjoy a cake with out breaking a few eggs and if Iraq is an egg so be it. The rest of the world well share the US "cake" when were done even if they shunned us in the past because we are that nice
I do not doupt that the US has done some nice things in this world, but saying everyone has to shut up because the US is the most powerful nation doesn't really make me want to remember anything nice they ever did. If someone comes up and says he could completely beat you down and is oh so nice because he doesn't, although he could, I don't think you would regard him as nice, but as a braggard and a showoff. People who go around rubbing their power under other people's noses are definetily not making friends, same goes for nations. Oh and by the way, if your only way off making the world a safer place is bombing people to hell because you can and it is the fastest and easiest way for you to resolve a conflict that is neither nice nor does it show much intelligence. "With great power comes great responsibilty", as all movie fans out there will know. I don't think that the US is handling this power that they obviously have, noone's gonna doubt that, all to well. They may be trying to act responsible, but... well you know.
On a side note: All the "you" in this were not aimed at you, reasa, just an easier way of writing this. If I sounded harsh, sorry, but I was actually trying to stay calm. This is the most civil way I could think of to say this, as other phrasing was much more vivid in my mind...
No Im not mad at you or anyone this is a debate of sorts and I don't expect all to agree with what I had to say.......I still stand by what I said.....as for solveing problems by just useing force look at north korea we have restrained from bombing them even tho they continue to harras us with threats and open up new necular power plants....we have kept our cool because we know a war with north korea wold result in the deaths of untold millions of north and south koreans....the war with Iraq can be done much "cleaner" if you well kind of like our war with the terrorists in afganastan as long as the Iraqies have the balls if you well to stand up and help us over throw saddam then the war in Iraq can go quickly and with as little civilians killed as possible. Then perhaps the people of Iraq can feel the joy of being able to speak there minds freely with out the fear of being shot by saddam
Comments
Keep in mind that never did I say that this war is "right", but it's just something that has got to be done.
[edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"I do not know what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." --Albert Einstein<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[/edit
Great!
The whole western world is wrestling for proof of small amounts of them, and now you come along and know that Hussein has B-weapons in huge amounts. I'd suggest you give Mr.Blix a ring, you might save him from another sixty days of searching.
Aside from that, my question stands: What in hell makes Hussein and Hitler comparable?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"The first victim to a war is the truth."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
State Department cables and court records reveal a wealth of information on how U.S. foreign policy shifted in the 1980s to help Iraq. Virtually all of the information is in the words of key participants, including Donald Rumsfeld, now secretary of defense.
THE NEW INFORMATION on the policy shift toward Iraq, and Rumsfeld’s role in it, comes as The New York Times reported Sunday that United States gave Iraq vital battle-planning help during its war with Iran as part of a secret program under President Reagan — even though U.S. intelligence agencies knew the Iraqis would unleash chemical weapons. The covert program involved more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency who helped Iraq in its eight-year war with Iran by providing detailed information on Iranian military deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments, the Times said. The Times said it based its report on comments by senior U.S. military officers with direct knowledge of the program, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. Iraq and neighboring Iran waged a vicious war from September 1980 to August 1988. An estimated 1 million people were killed and millions more were dislocated by the fighting.
<i>Full Article:</i> <a href='http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp?cp1=1#BODY' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp?cp1=1#BODY</a>
The American Government is famous for "Selective Memory" ... they remember what they want and forget about everything else the happened.
I still hear the Adminstration accuse Iraq of using Chemical Weapons against the Iranians as a reason for War <i>but</i> the CIA is just as guilty as Iraq. For Chemical Weapons to be effective Satellite Imagery is vital to the planning of their deployment. The US are no less guilty then Iraq for the death of the millions of Iranians, they provided important intelligence as well as diplomatic support.
<b>"United States gave Iraq vital battle-planning help during its war with Iran as part of a secret program under President Reagan — <i>even though U.S. intelligence agencies knew the Iraqis would unleash chemical weapons</i>. The covert program involved more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency who helped Iraq in its eight-year war with Iran by providing detailed information on Iranian military deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments..."</b>
That is simply <i>dispicable</i>.
Great!
The whole western world is wrestling for proof of small amounts of them, and now you come along and know that Hussein has B-weapons in huge amounts. I'd suggest you give Mr.Blix a ring, you might save him from another sixty days of searching.
Aside from that, my question stands: What in hell makes Hussein and Hitler comparable?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"The first victim to a war is the truth."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<u>In case you don't realize exactly WHAT the United Nations inspectors were(are) doing in Iraq:</u>
The UN Inspectors were sent there to verify that Iraq is disarming weapons of mass destruction. In order to accomplish this, the Iraqi regime would have to give proof that they are dismantling weapons facilities, destroying conventional and unconventional weaponry, and ceasing research on NCB (Nuclear/Chemical/Biological) Weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is not doing anything of this sort, in fact they are hiding everything that they have and arming themselves even further.
Iraq is already in material breach of this contract, and will be dealt with accordingly for this alone.
Not only is Hussein destroying his own people, but he's destroying the lands that were once the "Fertile Crescent". Remember that place from high school history classes? Well that is where Iraq is located now, but they have changed the scheme of the land so greatly that it has become a barren wasteland now - so you tree-huggin hippies DO have a reason to be angry with this regime.
If you can find them, take a look at some pictures of Iraq's river valleys circa 1975, and then compare them with a picture from the last decade. The degradation of the marshlands there is nearly complete, and it would truly take a miracle of engineering to bring them back to what they once were.
I'll save my other points to add later - too much fuel on the fire at once and we'll all get burned.
[edit]
I forgot about the 2nd question <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Hopefully, nothing WILL make Hussein and Hitler directly comparable - which is why we ought to do what we ought to do. Hussein is tyrannical enough and evil enough to make this much more than a holocaust (keep in mind I used a lowercase 'h' in holocaust, because I'm referring to the general term, not the one in WW2 specifically). The question is: does he have the resolve to pull anything with the weight of the U.S. Military and our allies on top of him?
[/edit]
You do realise that up until he killed the Kurds, Iraq was one of the few agricultrural producers in the middle east, right? Iraq only lost it's producer status because Hussein killed the Kurds, who made up teh majority of Iraq's farmers.
Don't get the wrong idea buddy. I think EVERYONE in theis discussion grees that something <b>HAS</b> to be done with Saddam.
I just so happen to be agaisnt war. I wonder why can't our leaders think up a better idea than war. There has to be millions of other ways. I think that war is profitable and thats why it is their solution.
And If they haven't thought of something better than war, then they're not thinking hard enough.
"Why do you come up with a better idea?" I've heard war sympathizers say. Well, To be frank I do think about it alot, however, I am not one of our leaders and I've come to the conclusion that even If I did have the answer it wouldn't matter. War is what they want, it's what they will get. I am afraid they will all the war they can handle.
As far as our soldiers who frequent the forums about the nicest thing I can say to you is, "I sincerely hope that you are killed before you are exposed to chemical and/or biological warfare." I mean this with a whole heart.
Because then the Gov will ignore you and give you no benifits until almost 9 times as many of you have died from the long term effects fo said biological/chemical agents.
O wait, that already happened.
O wait, that already happened. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wish it weren't true.
But seriously not to be morbid or anything. I just wouldn't want to see any of you die slowly and horribly from the long term affects.
The UN Inspectors were sent there to verify that Iraq is disarming weapons of mass destruction. In order to accomplish this, the Iraqi regime would have to give proof that they are dismantling weapons facilities, destroying conventional and unconventional weaponry, and ceasing research on NCB (Nuclear/Chemical/Biological) Weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is not doing anything of this sort, in fact they are hiding everything that they have and arming themselves even further. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a distinct difference between what they were doing and are doing. They <i>were</i> supervising the destruction of NBC weaponry, now they <i>are</i> searching for prove this wasn't finished.
Should you not yet have noticed, the whole of the pre-Persian Gulf War factories, all laboratories, all chemical plants fit for the production of such weapons, have been dismanteled. The last time it was suspected they had rebuilt one of them, President Bill Clinton gave the order to attack it - and thus destroyed a factory producing aspirin.
The inspectors are searching for 'smoking guns', and the only one assuming by default that them not finding anything means Hussein hid the stuff too well is Mr. Rumsfeld.
By the way, how come we see such a big procedere around the BC-weapon production of the Iraq, while the (illegal) laboratories the US government created, breaking any WoM contract they ever signed, were a two-days newsstory?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->so you tree-huggin hippies DO have a reason to be angry with this regime. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, I hate to tell you this, but I'm no "tree-huggin hippie". I drive a car, I don't smoke weed, I couldn't give a crap about the fate of the whales if I didn't know that by screwing the ecology up, we screw ourselves as well.
Second, as I said before, and as Dez already pointed out, nobody in here doubts that Hussein is the 'bad boy'. The questions we're asking are whether Bush is the good guy, and whether there are viable alternatives for an Iraq without of Hussein, and there are none, especially since Bush sen. left Iraqs democratic opposition to be slaughtered after Gulf War one.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hopefully, nothing WILL make Hussein and Hitler directly comparable - which is why we ought to do what we ought to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great logics. I think it's best for me to let the police lock me away right now - you never know, maybe one day I'll snap, buy myself a hunting rifle and search for a nice, high tower.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hussein is tyrannical enough and evil enough<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite honestly, I yet have to see a way of measuring 'evilness' ("Personally, I believe I'm 0,0125 Ghengiz Khan, or 0,05 Micheal Jackson."), and in my opinion, there's a little difference between the sinisterness of a simple murderer (and Hussein is just that) and a man basing his whole life solely on hate.
As for 'tyrannical', there are currently multiple dozens of tyrants on this planet, some of which came into power with the help of the US. Are they <i>all</i> like Hitler?
You said you studied history. So, to rephrase my question, what makes the position of the Iraq and Nazi-Germany (or the current European politic and Appeasement) comparable?
Oh, by the way, <a href='http://www.theonion.com/onion3904/north_dakota.html' target='_blank'>the Axis of Evil just got bigger <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--></a>
After that we should all apologize to Saddam for bothering him so much. Then maybe we can all be friends.
So far, that's the only non-military solution to this problem that I've heard. I asked for more a while back, but apparently nobody bothered to think one up. "Containment" I hear. What exactly does that mean? We all stand around looking over his shoulder? We've been doing that. Obviously it hasn't worked. But the Iraqi people don't really seem to care if Saddam rules their country so....
What kind of agression and/or prove for a soon to be agression from the Iraq stood at the beginning of this conflict? I can tell you - none. For the last five years, Hussein has done absolutely - <i>nothing</i> - that would justify an assault (yes, I'm aware that I'm also blaming Clinton with this, get over it). This crisis began with Bush calling Hussein part of the Axis of Evil.
Should the 150.000 soldiers that are waiting for the order to attack be withdrawn? Yes.
Should the sanctions be aborted? Yes.
Should they be replaced with a new, better thought out system of sanctions?
Should the Iraq be kept under further observation, possibly additionally by a kind of 'compulsory' weapon inspection?
You betcha.
Sadly maybe this could be a start. The worse it is for the people the more likely and quicker they will be to rebel. This FACT ecoes throughout history. Where are our geurillas when when need em'.
The phillipinos were unequiped, and they whuped us.
The Cuban rebels were reletively unequipped, but they have been able to succesfully rebel and keep power(while giving the US the finger nearly every step of the way) for, how long has been know? A good long time?
The Bolshevicks were a reletively weak force fighting one of the strongest nations in the world. They won.'
What makes you think that any rebelion in Iraq wouldn't work? One of them almost worked already, but when they asked us for help, we refused, but you're not allowed to say that around these parts.
Should the Iraq be kept under further observation, possibly additionally by a kind of 'compulsory' weapon inspection?
You betcha. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And what happens when the weapons are found? Does the U.N. sign ANOTHER resolution that says Saddam must disarm and discontinue is weapons programs? And what if he refuses? What diplomatic action can you take that only punishes Saddam's regime without damaging the Iraqi civilians?
Sweeping over the missile strikes in 98 is rather convenient don't ya think? The language used at the time was the same almost to the word. What's interesting is that the support for those strikes has changed only slightly in comparison to the current situation.
Here's a few links to check:
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/17/world.reax.iraq.02/#5' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/17/wor...reax.iraq.02/#5</a>
Scroll up a bit for a condensed list. You'll find the name of one supporting country looks very familiar.
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/clinton021998.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl...inton021998.htm</a>
Note the similarities in the language of this article.
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...ts/clinton.html</a>
Here's a transcript of President Clinton's public address after the operation had begun. Note that he did NOT go to the U.N. and ask permission alongside PM Blair.
I find it hard to believe that anyone will ever use nuclear weapons on any scale, because the only countries that would ever attack with them are run by people who's main goal is to be in power at any cost, and you can't be in power if ther is no one to rule.
That is what will happen when someone presses the Big Red Button.
A. You talk about our sanctions that we give Iraq. Saddam doesn't give them to the people who need them so taking them away won't matter at all.
B. The Iraqi army has plenty of weapons. They are in a **** position too. Its not unheard of for a nations army to take up arms against its own leaders and change the government themselves.
C. What makes you think that the government we put into power after Saddam is dead will be better?<sarcasm> I mean because we don't have poverty in America. And we have a stable economy so obviously we know what we are doing </sarcasm>
"Guerilla" term was used to make an association with a fighter who fights for "the peoples" cause. They need freedom fighters. I doubt any Iraqi's want America to do their dirty work.
Iraq, however is not conducive to a Guerrilla war. Guerrilla wars are best fought in forests or jungles. There is very little cover in the desert.
His "Evidence Show" was pretty stupid...
What we have here fellas is a hand full of oil-warmongers without any kind of evidence trying to start a dangerous war, without giving a thought about anyone but them selves.
This is the time we should speak out and dont let this happen.
Have a nice day.
Now we're getting pretty hypothetical, but what the hell.
First, there is a distinct difference between what <i>happens</i> after the weapons are found (Gulf War 2), and what <i>should</i> happen in my opinion (issuing a 30-days ultimatum to hand the weapons over for destruction, institutionalizing a mandatory weapon inspection...).
Would Hussein refuse? Not likely. As AllUrHives already mentioned, this man clinges to his power. Complying to the guidelines would be the only way left - for him, there'd be too many possible enemies and too little WoM to nuke them all, as mean as that may sound.
As for Clinton, yes, he was just another one "of the boys", as Bill Hicks once stated. Neither Democrats nor Replublicans followed the right foreign policies for the last two decades. The big difference is that Clinton limited himself to small outbursts, whereas Bush sets the stages for a war as the US haven't seen one since Vietnam.
I would however like to point out that two countries which were 'on the fence' / 'supporting' the last time, aren't this time, or, as it was put in the Onion "Hey, Mr. President! Even the Germans don't want to fight. Get the friggin hint." <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
This all was written by the inhabitant of <a href='http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,233970,00.html' target='_blank'>a country comparable to Lybia.</a> (German link.)
His "Evidence Show" was pretty stupid...
What we have here fellas is a hand full of oil-warmongers without any kind of evidence trying to start a dangerous war, without giving a thought about anyone but them selves.
This is the time we should speak out and dont let this happen.
Have a nice day. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really respect the hard work and dedication you must have had to commit to be <span style='color:white'>no flaming.</span>
Iraq produces 1-2 Billion barrells of oil a day. The world output is about 50-60 Billion. The US gain will be minimal at best. Also, OPEC, not the individual country controls production and hence prices. Free market economics also dictates that the oil prices are not affected by an individual country. Just because we don't buy oil from Iraq doesn't stop other countries. Oi prices balance out. For example: Buying only South American Oil means that less people can buy South American oil, meaning they need to buy Middle Eastern oil instead of Venezualan. All you do is change where people send their money- you end up getting the same and paying the same amount- its only to whom that changes. It doesn't matter where you get it, its all the same price because of the nature of oil as a commodity.
Second, you can't actually say Iraq has NO WMDs. The UN acknowledges it. The world acknowledges it. Powell's evidence would be sketchy if not for the fact that it was corroborated from multiple sources. For example, a defector said that in July of 2002, Iraq was clearing out a chemical site. US satilete photos show just this- numerous trucks at said 'suspected' chemical dev. site. Add in later photos showing the entire area razed and you have undeniable proof.
Finally, look at Bush's character. He's a very religious guy. The left loves to attack him on this. Being the man that he is, he's very concerned about right and wrong, and he knows its wrong to go to war for personal gain. The left likes to leave the line between these 2 dots unconnected.
And whats so bad about going to war- its part of life. The Iraqi people are oppressed. Can anyone legitametly say that the Iraqi people will be worse off (or even in the same position they're in now!) if Saddam loses power? <span style='color:white'>Still no flaming.</span>
gg peaceniks.
- The Iraq produces very little oil right now, this doesn't change a thing about it having roughly a third of the oilreserves left.
- There's very little to the oiltrade that can be described as 'free market'. Aside from the OPEC, which does by the way not represent all oil producing states, there are numerous other influences that keep this market 'controlled'. Prices don't level out that way and differ highly from producing state to producing state.
Just look at the prices on the stuff in the North Sea.
- All we know is that the Iraq used to have weapons of mass destruction. Everything else has to be verified, which the Inspectors will do now.
- Bush being religious is all good and nice - but there's this little phrase in your constitution forcing a divide between religion and state.
If Bush has faith in god, I congratulate him on it. If he makes that faith the basis of his political descisions, I call him a fundamentalist.
If he starts a war because of his religious notions, he's a crusader and not by an inch better than Bin Laden.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And whats so bad about going to war- its part of life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. It's the end of life.
Aside from that, show me the Iraqi who could lead his/her country in a better future and would have all the land behind him/her.
The Iraq was divided amongst warlords when Hussein gained power, and ethnic, religious and economical tension make it quite likely that it'd fall into that pit again. Taking a look at Afghanistan, I doubt that any kind of foreign force could change that.
His "Evidence Show" was pretty stupid... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
By the way, to anyone who saw it: guess who is now the proud owner of www.al-kindi.com?
ME! YAYAYAY!
bought it yesterday, nothing up yet, but soon(if I don't post much after this, it means the FBI got me)
I hardly can add anything...thx for replying for me <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
2. Jammer, why should we flame? I dont see a reason for that! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Are you from the US? Well, you know, it doesnt really matter to me <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
For me you re the "Jammer" Guy and I think I like you, cause I think I should like all interested people.
And you are an interested Guy.
But Leaders and Politicians are not nice people. They like to abuse Power and lie to those interested
people.And Bush is a bad fella, as is Saddam...
So... if Bush sold all chemical weapons to Iraq and now wants to attack it because it bought those from the US, well you see where this is going to...
What if Powel came out and said: WE KNOW THEY HAVE WMDs BUT ONLY BECAUSE WE SOLD THEM TO IRAQ OURSELVES!
This is ridicoulus of course, thats why noone says it.
In the End, its all a game of superiority... compare our globe as ns_hera and IRaq the doubled resourced holo room <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
If someone comes up and says he could completely beat you down and is oh so nice because he doesn't, although he could, I don't think you would regard him as nice, but as a braggard and a showoff. People who go around rubbing their power under other people's noses are definetily not making friends, same goes for nations.
Oh and by the way, if your only way off making the world a safer place is bombing people to hell because you can and it is the fastest and easiest way for you to resolve a conflict that is neither nice nor does it show much intelligence. "With great power comes great responsibilty", as all movie fans out there will know. I don't think that the US is handling this power that they obviously have, noone's gonna doubt that, all to well. They may be trying to act responsible, but... well you know.
On a side note: All the "you" in this were not aimed at you, reasa, just an easier way of writing this. If I sounded harsh, sorry, but I was actually trying to stay calm. This is the most civil way I could think of to say this, as other phrasing was much more vivid in my mind...